I Didn’t Realize These Were the Only Two Options When It Came to Sex December 11, 2018

I Didn’t Realize These Were the Only Two Options When It Came to Sex

White evangelical Christians aren’t exactly known for their nuanced thinking: everything fits in a strict binary, black-and-white category. Everything is either right or wrong, never gray, questionable, or on a spectrum.

That’s the line of thinking that produces a headline like this (which a pastor rightly mocked on Twitter):

The piece at the Federalist suggests that the only options when it comes to sex are abstinence before marriage or a “sexual free-for-all.” The lived experiences of thousands — perhaps millions — of people, Christian and otherwise, debunks this. Plenty of people are having sex in monogamous, unmarried partnerships. But even if someone is promiscuous (however the writer defines that), that doesn’t necessarily constitute a lifestyle of sexual debauchery.

The following response illustrates a more appropriate reading of the matter:

Even if you believe sex is best reserved for marriage, you can still agree with that sentiment. You can hold a conviction close to your heart without erasing others’ lived experiences. If only the Federalist and evangelicals who believe abstinence is the only acceptable option for everyone could see that.

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!